Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

The only people that believe this about this decision are the same ones who convinced themselves Colorado stood a chance in the first place.

Most Americans disagreed with Colorado’s moving Trump off the ballot, and don’t care about the disputes between the judges on the secondary issues in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Lol. This is the guy who said this: “What I have said is that I am confident that the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado Supreme Court’s decision based upon the objective law, which in this instance is Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Which is to say that I know that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is unassailable in every single respect under the Constitution of the United States.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CO took the biggest L in court history.

State should be called LOLARADO now because they lost so bad.

Not really. Colorado got Trump's Insurrection entered into the Supreme Court's historical record. None of the justices wanted to actually attach themselves to the insurrection itself and just said it was the job of Congress to deal with him. It was a predictable outcome because they couldn't risk candidates being thrown off the ballot for other reasons not akin to Trump's Insurrection, but Trump doesn't come out of this looking great.

Actually he did, and the democrat party takes another L as well.

They took took the leading opposition candidate off of the ballot like a thrived world banana republic does, the SCOTUS smokes the state of LOLARADO and says they can’t. Trump looks like a guy who the deep state hates, the majority of real Americans hate the deep state.

The state of LOLARADO looks like it’s involved in election interference (which it is), bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe has attempted to weapons the DOJ to get anyone he disagrees with.
The Fannie what’s her face from GA is going to be impeached because she’s corrupt.

The NY ruling looks corrupt to the point even the bank who lended the money to Trump was like “he didn’t do anything wrong, in fact we’d do business with home again in a second”.

All of this out together along with the lefts seething hatred of a man that most of middle America and blue collar people like is going to get home elected.

LOLRADO and bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe take the huge Ls, MSNBC and CNN look like idiots again…Trump gets more support.

I’m telling you and I hope this post gets marked, Trump will landslide into 2024 victory. PA, MI, OH will swing to Trump. Wisconsin will you most likely. It will be a victory almost as big as Reagan’s.

The majority of "real" Americans hate the deep state. Nice, too bad that's not going to be enough for him this fall. Haley is pretty badly embarrassing him by pulling as many votes as she is from the presumed nominee. Aside, the New York banks are free to lend money to him related to his fraud disgorgement. Let's see what happens there. How many days left on that? And, of course, SCOTUS said it was the job of Congress (and not them or the states) to deal with Trump's Insurrection.

lol…Haley hasn’t won a primary. It only that she’s lost hugely.

Trump will win

Haley won a primary yesterday.

I like Haley but winning DC is…not a flex.

Haley is democrat's darling, no surprise she won democrats populated city.

Go ahead and celebrate 1,274 voters like your candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.

Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.

Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them?

Of course I do and I think 5 of the judges just made that clear.

[Anonymous]

^ outside of legislation that would be passed, that is. Which doesn't exist right now.

[Anonymous]

Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.

Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them?

Of course I do and I think 5 of the judges just made that clear.

No, the Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that they have to swear in the other guy on January 21. Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

The 9-0 did not say that. Four only agreed that Colorado can’t do it. The legislation thing is made up bullshit that was irrelevant to the ruling. The 14th amendment has been applied to disqualify candidates for lower offices. No new legislation is needed. SCOTUS could have interpreted the Constitution, but they didn’t. The legislation requirement is not in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Honey, I'm a conservative. I'm also a lawyer m. It's dicta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Honey, I'm a conservative. I'm also a lawyer m. It's dicta.

Dicta that is predictive. Why do you think they wrote it in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.